Cited by 34Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFace recognition and analysisFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders

Recognition of facial expression of fetuses by artificial intelligence (AI)

Open access
Miyagi, Yasunari, Hata, Toshiyuki, Bouno, Saori, Koyanagi, Aya, Miyake, Takahito·2021·Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The development of the artificial intelligence (AI) classifier to recognize fetal facial expressions that are considered as being related to the brain development of fetuses as a retrospective, non-interventional pilot study. METHODS: Images of fetal faces with sonography obtained from outpatient pregnant women with a singleton fetus were enrolled in routine conventional practice from 19 to 38 weeks of gestation from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020, with completely de-identified data. The images were classified into seven categories, such as eye blinking, mouthing, face without any expression, scowling, smiling, tongue expulsion, and yawning. The category in which the number of fetuses was less than 10 was eliminated before preparation. Next, we created a deep learning AI classifier with the data. Statistical values such as accuracy for the test dataset and the AI confidence score profiles for each category per image for all data were obtained. RESULTS: The number of fetuses/images in the rated categories were 14/147, 23/302, 33/320, 8/55, and 10/72 for eye blinking, mouthing, face without any expression, scowling, and yawning, respectively. The accuracy of the AI fetal facial expression for the entire test data set was 0.985. The accuracy/sensitivity/specificity values were 0.996/0.993/1.000, 0.992/0.986/1.000, 0.985/1.000/0.979, 0.996/0.888/1.000, and 1.000/1.000/1.000 for the eye blinking, mouthing, face without any expression, scowling categories, and yawning, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AI classifier has the potential to objectively classify fetal facial expressions. AI can advance fetal brain development research using ultrasound.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/jpm-2020-0537

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Three studies assessed the ability of deep learning models to undergo self-supervised learning by correcting the order of a reshuffled fetal video clip, by context restoration of unlabeled 2D fetal images and the use of random forests classifiers for classification of unlabeled fetal ultrasound images.

    “Three studies assessed the ability of deep learning models to undergo self-supervised learning by correcting the order of a reshuffled fetal video clip, 115 by context restoration of unlabeled 2D fetal images 116 and the use of random forests classifiers for classification of unlabeled fetal ultrasound images.117”

    From Artificial intelligence in obstetric ultrasound: A scoping review. (2023) · cites this paper as [116]

    Citation 117 is attached to the random-forest classification of unlabeled fetal ultrasound images. The AI classifier section (page unavailable) instead describes a convolutional neural network trained on fetal-face images assigned to expression categories. The Discussion also explicitly says the model depends on supervised data, contrary to the claimed self-supervised use of unlabeled images. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Miyagi et al. proposed an AI classifier analyzing 4D US volumes to assess fetal facial expressions and classify them into different categories.

    “Miyagi et al. proposed an AI classifier analyzing 4D US volumes to assess fetal facial expressions and classify them into different categories [102,103]”

    From Evolving the Era of 5D Ultrasound? A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications for Artificial Intelligence Ultrasound Imaging in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2023) · cites this paper as [103]

    The Patients and data preparation section says the fetal-face images came from four-dimensional ultrasound, and the AI classifier section describes a model that assigns each image to a facial-expression category. But the paper says it captured and analyzed still images, not 4D ultrasound volumes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hata T, Kanenishi K, AboEllail MAM, Marumo G, Kurjak A. Fetal consciousness 4D ultrasound study. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;9:471-4.
  2. Miyagi Y, Fujiwara K, Oda T, Miyake T, Coleman RL. Development of new method for the prediction of clinical trial results using compressive sensing of artificial intelligence. J Biostat Biometric Appl 2018;3:202.
  3. Glorot X, Bordes A, Bengio Y. Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics (AISTATS), Lauderdale, USA, 2011. AISTATS; 2011. pp. 315-23.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miyagi, Y., Hata, T., Bouno, S., Koyanagi, A., & Miyake, T.
Affiliations
  • Saitama International Medical Center (JP)
  • Kagawa University (JP)
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Miyake Clinic , Okayama , Japan
  • Department of Gynecology , Miyake Ofuku Clinic , Okayama , Japan
Corresponding author
Miyagi, Yasunari
Venue
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Published
2021-02-08
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
596-603
ISSN
  • 0300-5577 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-3997
OpenAlex
W3126365686
Cited by
34
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Perinatal Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face recognition and analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Keywords
fetal facial expressions, fetal brain development, prenatal ultrasound, deep learning classifier, blinking, yawning, smiling, mouthing
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Face, Facial Expression, Female, Fetal Movement, Fetus, Humans, Pregnancy, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Fetal Development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review